Dipesh Murarka Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 places following conditions and procedures for export of goods under bond without payment of duty. Let us see the conditions first:- CONDITIONS Any goods may be exported without payment of duty from a factory of the manufacturer or producer or warehouse or any other premises, […]
the Central Government had extended the anti-dumping duty imposed on the subject goods originating in, or exported from the subject countries vide notification No. 07/2014-Customs (ADD)
These regulations may be called the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Regulatory Fee on Stock Exchanges) (Amendment) Regulations, 2015.
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 30 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Board hereby makes the following regulations to further amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992, namely,–
A commodity derivatives exchange may continue with the existing arrangement for clearing and settlement of trades for a period not exceeding three years from the date of commencement of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Stock Exchanges and Clearing Corporations) (Amendment) Regulations, 2015
In terms of the provisions contained in paragraph 5.1 of the Department of Expenditure Office Memorandum No. 7 (3) E-Coord /2006 dated 22.07.2006, call charges for select number of mobile phones (1857) to officers of the Customs & Central Excise Department was being reimbursed under the scheme of 1 % incremental revenue as incentive provision in view of the requirement of connectivity of field officers with the senior officers at headquarters till the F.Y. 2011-12.
Export of organic sugar without any quantity limits, will be permitted till the time export of sugar is Free. Such export will be subject to the condition that the sugar should be duly certified by APEDA as being organic sugar.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Nirmal Kumar Bardia vs. DCIT that argument of the assessee that the assessee had disclosed salary received from RMC Gems Thai Co. Ltd., Bangkok voluntarily has not substantiated with any evidence.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ACIT vs. Shri Johari Lal Sodhani that the CIT (A) had given various reasons of retraction and also has considered the evidence for not honouring the statement made under section 132(4).
ITAT Delhi held in Ambience Hotel & Resort Pvt. Vs CIT that if the AO had done his assessment ignoring the provisions of the IT act and TPA and ignoring the examinations/inquiry then that assessment was erroneous
